Please read, why i dont support a war in iraq right now

[t0nythelover]

1. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/06/blair.iraq/index.html

2. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/05/iraq.nuclear/index.html

3.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/09/07/australia.bush.reut/index.html

4.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/iraq.asia.reax/index.html

5.http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/congress.iraq/index.html

6.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/03/iraq.annan/index.html

7.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/02/russia.iraq/index.html

8.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/01/powell.iraq/index.html

9.http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/clinton.iraq/index.html

10.http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

11.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/index.html

12.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/01/blair.iraq/index.html

[sassa]

i believe mass problems will surface if bush the moron is allowed to enter iraq. world war III might even erupt...and i fear that day might be around the corner...

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

i believe mass problems will surface if bush the moron is allowed to enter iraq. world war III might even erupt...and i fear that day might be around the corner...

Please shut the fuck up already....do you realize that you have bitched and moaned about everything for a year, and ended up be wrong about everything, as always

Just end your life already you repulsive little whore

[sassa]

igloo, you really need to either seek help or do a lot of drugs....

[£ddie]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

1. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/06/blair.iraq/index.html

2. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/05/iraq.nuclear/index.html

3.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/09/07/australia.bush.reut/index.html

4.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/iraq.asia.reax/index.html

5.http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/congress.iraq/index.html

6.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/03/iraq.annan/index.html

7.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/02/russia.iraq/index.html

8.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/01/powell.iraq/index.html

9.http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/clinton.iraq/index.html

10.http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

11.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/index.html

12.http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/01/blair.iraq/index.html

1. Putin and the Russians do a significant amount of business with the Iraqis, it would not be in thei best interests if Iraq was attacked. Therefore, the Russians have little credibility on this issue.

2. So there's no evidence of a threat? Well that contradicts the song Clinton and Tom Daschle were singing in February of 1998 (notably, the same year as the midterm elections). Back then they were threatening the use of force because of Hussein's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program. It also contradicts what the chief weapons inspector claimed three years ago, that Iraq had the capability of delivering chemical weapons.

3. Australians have a distaste for war, so fucking what? When was the last time you remember Australia fighting in ANY war?

4. Pakistan doesn't support the action, so what? They don't want to be seen as American sympathizers in the Muslim world. Musharraf is already a target for supporting U.S. action in Afghanistan, so supporting U.S. action would drive DOWN support for Musharraf even more among the extremist element. The only reason they even supported military action in Afghanistan was because we had to BRIBE them with billions in debt relief.

5. This article is useless. The President has sought approval for military action from Congress RARELY in the two hundred some years this country has been around. Did Clinton seek approval when he bombed an aspirin factory in Africa with million-dollar-a-piece Tomahawk cruise missiles? I thought not. Hmm, maybe because he was launching a PREEMPTIVE strike.

6. Iraq ready to work with the U.N.? So let me ask you, if you invited police over to your house and you were in possession of contraband e.g., drugs, wouldn't you try your fucking hardest to hide them so that NO ONE could find it, especially the cops? Iraq has zero credibility as far as its word goes.

7. See number 1.

8. If anything this SUPPORTS military action. So a few senators disagree, so what? It's called politics.

9. See number 2. Clinton supported the use of force in 1998 if Iraq did not end its weapons of mass destruction program, which OBVIOUSLY presumes he had SOME SORT of evidence such a program existed. Democrats are criticizing Bush for wanting to use force against Iraq, when they were supporting Clinton for the same thing just 4 years ago--POLITICS.

10. And? 56% of Americans have a "clear idea" of why we want to atack Iraq. Some of those clear ideas may differ, but who says there is solely one reason for launching a strike?

11. Germany won't provide support, so what? Iraq is not a threat to Germany. Germany didn't have the city of Berlin struck by two 747s. Germany's support is desirable, but NOT necessary.

12. This supports military action.

Your argument looks weak. Try again.

[girly]

Originally posted by £ddie

1. Putin and the Russians do a significant amount of business with the Iraqis, it would not be in thei best interests if Iraq was attacked. Therefore, the Russians have little credibility on this issue.

2. So there's no evidence of a threat? Well that contradicts the song Clinton and Tom Daschle were singing in February of 1998 (notably, the same year as the midterm elections). Back then they were threatening the use of force because of Hussein's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program. It also contradicts what the chief weapons inspector claimed three years ago, that Iraq had the capability of delivering chemical weapons.

3. Australians have a distaste for war, so fucking what? When was the last time you remember Australia fighting in ANY war?

4. Pakistan doesn't support the action, so what? They don't want to be seen as American sympathizers in the Muslim world. Musharraf is already a target for supporting U.S. action in Afghanistan, so supporting U.S. action would drive DOWN support for Musharraf even more among the extremist element. The only reason they even supported military action in Afghanistan was because we had to BRIBE them with billions in debt relief.

5. This article is useless. The President has sought approval for military action from Congress RARELY in the two hundred some years this country has been around. Did Clinton seek approval when he bombed an aspirin factory in Africa with million-dollar-a-piece Tomahawk cruise missiles? I thought not. Hmm, maybe because he was launching a PREEMPTIVE strike.

6. Iraq ready to work with the U.N.? So let me ask you, if you invited police over to your house and you were in possession of contraband e.g., drugs, wouldn't you try your fucking hardest to hide them so that NO ONE could find it, especially the cops? Iraq has zero credibility as far as its word goes.

7. See number 1.

8. If anything this SUPPORTS military action. So a few senators disagree, so what? It's called politics.

9. See number 2. Clinton supported the use of force in 1998 if Iraq did not end its weapons of mass destruction program, which OBVIOUSLY presumes he had SOME SORT of evidence such a program existed. Democrats are criticizing Bush for wanting to use force against Iraq, when they were supporting Clinton for the same thing just 4 years ago--POLITICS.

10. And? 56% of Americans have a "clear idea" of why we want to atack Iraq. Some of those clear ideas may differ, but who says there is solely one reason for launching a strike?

11. Germany won't provide support, so what? Iraq is not a threat to Germany. Germany didn't have the city of Berlin struck by two 747s. Germany's support is desirable, but NOT necessary.

12. This supports military action.

Your argument looks weak. Try again.

WOW look at you breaking it down:eek:

[igloo]

Originally posted by £ddie

1. Putin and the Russians do a significant amount of business with the Iraqis, it would not be in thei best interests if Iraq was attacked. Therefore, the Russians have little credibility on this issue.

2. So there's no evidence of a threat? Well that contradicts the song Clinton and Tom Daschle were singing in February of 1998 (notably, the same year as the midterm elections). Back then they were threatening the use of force because of Hussein's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program. It also contradicts what the chief weapons inspector claimed three years ago, that Iraq had the capability of delivering chemical weapons.

3. Australians have a distaste for war, so fucking what? When was the last time you remember Australia fighting in ANY war?

4. Pakistan doesn't support the action, so what? They don't want to be seen as American sympathizers in the Muslim world. Musharraf is already a target for supporting U.S. action in Afghanistan, so supporting U.S. action would drive DOWN support for Musharraf even more among the extremist element. The only reason they even supported military action in Afghanistan was because we had to BRIBE them with billions in debt relief.

5. This article is useless. The President has sought approval for military action from Congress RARELY in the two hundred some years this country has been around. Did Clinton seek approval when he bombed an aspirin factory in Africa with million-dollar-a-piece Tomahawk cruise missiles? I thought not. Hmm, maybe because he was launching a PREEMPTIVE strike.

6. Iraq ready to work with the U.N.? So let me ask you, if you invited police over to your house and you were in possession of contraband e.g., drugs, wouldn't you try your fucking hardest to hide them so that NO ONE could find it, especially the cops? Iraq has zero credibility as far as its word goes.

7. See number 1.

8. If anything this SUPPORTS military action. So a few senators disagree, so what? It's called politics.

9. See number 2. Clinton supported the use of force in 1998 if Iraq did not end its weapons of mass destruction program, which OBVIOUSLY presumes he had SOME SORT of evidence such a program existed. Democrats are criticizing Bush for wanting to use force against Iraq, when they were supporting Clinton for the same thing just 4 years ago--POLITICS.

10. And? 56% of Americans have a "clear idea" of why we want to atack Iraq. Some of those clear ideas may differ, but who says there is solely one reason for launching a strike?

11. Germany won't provide support, so what? Iraq is not a threat to Germany. Germany didn't have the city of Berlin struck by two 747s. Germany's support is desirable, but NOT necessary.

12. This supports military action.

Your argument looks weak. Try again.

Nice job!

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by £ddie

1. Putin and the Russians do a significant amount of business with the Iraqis, it would not be in thei best interests if Iraq was attacked. Therefore, the Russians have little credibility on this issue.

2. So there's no evidence of a threat? Well that contradicts the song Clinton and Tom Daschle were singing in February of 1998 (notably, the same year as the midterm elections). Back then they were threatening the use of force because of Hussein's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program. It also contradicts what the chief weapons inspector claimed three years ago, that Iraq had the capability of delivering chemical weapons.

3. Australians have a distaste for war, so fucking what? When was the last time you remember Australia fighting in ANY war?

4. Pakistan doesn't support the action, so what? They don't want to be seen as American sympathizers in the Muslim world. Musharraf is already a target for supporting U.S. action in Afghanistan, so supporting U.S. action would drive DOWN support for Musharraf even more among the extremist element. The only reason they even supported military action in Afghanistan was because we had to BRIBE them with billions in debt relief.

5. This article is useless. The President has sought approval for military action from Congress RARELY in the two hundred some years this country has been around. Did Clinton seek approval when he bombed an aspirin factory in Africa with million-dollar-a-piece Tomahawk cruise missiles? I thought not. Hmm, maybe because he was launching a PREEMPTIVE strike.

6. Iraq ready to work with the U.N.? So let me ask you, if you invited police over to your house and you were in possession of contraband e.g., drugs, wouldn't you try your fucking hardest to hide them so that NO ONE could find it, especially the cops? Iraq has zero credibility as far as its word goes.

7. See number 1.

8. If anything this SUPPORTS military action. So a few senators disagree, so what? It's called politics.

9. See number 2. Clinton supported the use of force in 1998 if Iraq did not end its weapons of mass destruction program, which OBVIOUSLY presumes he had SOME SORT of evidence such a program existed. Democrats are criticizing Bush for wanting to use force against Iraq, when they were supporting Clinton for the same thing just 4 years ago--POLITICS.

10. And? 56% of Americans have a "clear idea" of why we want to atack Iraq. Some of those clear ideas may differ, but who says there is solely one reason for launching a strike?

11. Germany won't provide support, so what? Iraq is not a threat to Germany. Germany didn't have the city of Berlin struck by two 747s. Germany's support is desirable, but NOT necessary.

12. This supports military action.

Your argument looks weak. Try again.

1. so they do business with iraq, thats nothing compared to the amount of money the us has donated or loaned to russia since the fall of the ussr. russia does not value iraqi money over the us dollar. the thought of that is ridiculous.

2. i dont know what clinton said b4, all i know is what i read in this article so i cant say anything on that.

3.the point of me putting that link there was to show that bush is saying he has a distate for war, he a liar. the australian thing was a sidenote to my argument.

4.pakistan has nukes, and thats one more threat to think about. there part of the international community so we have to listen to thier arguments just as we would anyother. point is that most countries around the world do not support this war, and its because there is no reason for a war. the whole world cant be wrong on this. besides, havent you ever seen wag the dog.

5.actually the last time congress approved of a war was ww2, we declared war right after pearl harbor, so its more like 50 years. what happened since then, korea, gulf war, some others, but most importantly vietnam, a whole generation fought to keep the govt from waging causeless wars, and you want to turn the clock back.

6. bottomline is hussein knows hes dead if we go in there, he knows he has no chance against the us so he is seeking help from the un. smart move by him. if we wage war without consent from the un it will be the biggest political mistake of this century without a doubt.

7.same

8. the us constitution clearly states that only congress has the power to declare war. the president can send small numbers of troops out but not declare a full on war. theres a reason for that, and if you dont understand the concept of checks and balances im not going to bother to explain.

9.like i said b4 i dont know what clinton said b4, just whats on this link.

10.i dont know how to respond, but its sad if we dont know why were going to war.

11.once again, this is just another example of the us going against the advice of the international community. its disgusting that bush wants to use sept. 11th for his own personal gain. it makes me want to vomit. as for germany not supporting us, during this whole time the us has had full support on the war on terrorism from the world, now were just alienating ourselves from our allies.

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by £ddie

1. Putin and the Russians do a significant amount of business with the Iraqis, it would not be in thei best interests if Iraq was attacked. Therefore, the Russians have little credibility on this issue.

2. So there's no evidence of a threat? Well that contradicts the song Clinton and Tom Daschle were singing in February of 1998 (notably, the same year as the midterm elections). Back then they were threatening the use of force because of Hussein's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program. It also contradicts what the chief weapons inspector claimed three years ago, that Iraq had the capability of delivering chemical weapons.

3. Australians have a distaste for war, so fucking what? When was the last time you remember Australia fighting in ANY war?

4. Pakistan doesn't support the action, so what? They don't want to be seen as American sympathizers in the Muslim world. Musharraf is already a target for supporting U.S. action in Afghanistan, so supporting U.S. action would drive DOWN support for Musharraf even more among the extremist element. The only reason they even supported military action in Afghanistan was because we had to BRIBE them with billions in debt relief.

5. This article is useless. The President has sought approval for military action from Congress RARELY in the two hundred some years this country has been around. Did Clinton seek approval when he bombed an aspirin factory in Africa with million-dollar-a-piece Tomahawk cruise missiles? I thought not. Hmm, maybe because he was launching a PREEMPTIVE strike.

6. Iraq ready to work with the U.N.? So let me ask you, if you invited police over to your house and you were in possession of contraband e.g., drugs, wouldn't you try your fucking hardest to hide them so that NO ONE could find it, especially the cops? Iraq has zero credibility as far as its word goes.

7. See number 1.

8. If anything this SUPPORTS military action. So a few senators disagree, so what? It's called politics.

9. See number 2. Clinton supported the use of force in 1998 if Iraq did not end its weapons of mass destruction program, which OBVIOUSLY presumes he had SOME SORT of evidence such a program existed. Democrats are criticizing Bush for wanting to use force against Iraq, when they were supporting Clinton for the same thing just 4 years ago--POLITICS.

10. And? 56% of Americans have a "clear idea" of why we want to atack Iraq. Some of those clear ideas may differ, but who says there is solely one reason for launching a strike?

11. Germany won't provide support, so what? Iraq is not a threat to Germany. Germany didn't have the city of Berlin struck by two 747s. Germany's support is desirable, but NOT necessary.

12. This supports military action.

Your argument looks weak. Try again.

1. so they do business with iraq, thats nothing compared to the amount of money the us has donated or loaned to russia since the fall of the ussr. russia does not value iraqi money over the us dollar. the thought of that is ridiculous.

2. i dont know what clinton said b4, all i know is what i read in this article so i cant say anything on that.

3.the point of me putting that link there was to show that bush is saying he has a distate for war, he a liar. the australian thing was a sidenote to my argument.

4.pakistan has nukes, and thats one more threat to think about. there part of the international community so we have to listen to thier arguments just as we would anyother. point is that most countries around the world do not support this war, and its because there is no reason for a war. the whole world cant be wrong on this. besides, havent you ever seen wag the dog.

5.actually the last time congress approved of a war was ww2, we declared war right after pearl harbor, so its more like 50 years. what happened since then, korea, gulf war, some others, but most importantly vietnam, a whole generation fought to keep the govt from waging causeless wars, and you want to turn the clock back.

6. bottomline is hussein knows hes dead if we go in there, he knows he has no chance against the us so he is seeking help from the un. smart move by him. if we wage war without consent from the un it will be the biggest political mistake of this century without a doubt.

7.same

8. the us constitution clearly states that only congress has the power to declare war. the president can send small numbers of troops out but not declare a full on war. theres a reason for that, and if you dont understand the concept of checks and balances im not going to bother to explain.

9.like i said b4 i dont know what clinton said b4, just whats on this link.

10.i dont know how to respond, but its sad if we dont know why were going to war.

11.once again, this is just another example of the us going against the advice of the international community. its disgusting that bush wants to use sept. 11th for his own personal gain. it makes me want to vomit. as for germany not supporting us, during this whole time the us has had full support on the war on terrorism from the world, now were just alienating ourselves from our allies.

12. it hasnt proven anything yet, im still waiting for that evidence and until i see it im 100 percent against war. why not excersise other options first? and if hussein really is such a threat why not keep a preemtive attack secret?

as for my argument being weak, well it wasnt really an argument, im just spreading information from a credible source that supports my beliefs. im not trying to prove anything or else i would have wrote along with the links and it would be in depth.

igloo, you dont even back up what ur saying so dont post unless you have something to (information, counterpoint, whatever). its ez for spectators to criticise, try gettin in the game.